John Healey (Financial Secretary, HM Treasury; Wentworth, Labour)

This clause is of a rather different nature, although it falls within the broad chapter of excise regimes. I am pleased that we are able to introduce it. It reflects the Government’s commitment to simplifying and updating tax administration thatis outdated, outmoded and causing unnecessary complications for taxpayers. Those complications can also add to businesses’ compliance costs, and sometimes act as a barrier to entry to market. The clause allows us to remove from the statute book a number of provisions that fall into that category.

The clause amends the Alcoholic Liquor Duties Act 1979 by removing a number of provisions that are either obsolete or no longer serve any practical purpose. Some of them restrict businesses’ legitimate commercial freedom while frankly no longer serving any useful purpose in terms of revenue protection. The clause is part of our wider package of changes to the alcohol duties regime, under which we will repeal or simplify over 40 provisions in alcohol legislation. It has been welcomed by the drinks industry. We are discussing in detail with them whether there are areas where we could go further. I commend the clause to the Committee.

Paul Goodman (Shadow Minister (Childcare), Treasury; Wycombe, Conservative)

We have received no representations suggesting that any inappropriate changes are being made under the clause, or that any changes are being made in error, so we will assume that the clause is in order and shall not oppose it.

Julia Goldsworthy (Shadow Chief Secretary To the Treasury, Treasury; Falmouth & Camborne, Liberal Democrat)

We have no issue with the clause, and welcome the fact that it simplifies and updates tax  administration that causes unnecessary complications. It is just a shame that the same cannot be said of many other clauses in the Bill.

Philip Dunne (Ludlow, Conservative)

I rise to ask the Financial Secretary for clarification on subsection 1(o), which removes section 82—which is on the power to make regulations with respect to stills—from the 1979 Act. I ask him to clarify precisely what powers are being removed, and shall explain why I have an interest in the subject. Naturally, I welcome deregulatory moves of any kind, and particularly those that scrap unnecessary regulations. I would particularly welcome the measure if it encouraged further agricultural diversification, which is how I read it.

I represent a rural constituency where agriculture remains an important economic driver. Many farmers are looking to establish local products with higher value added, through which they can diversify, and many smaller farmers in my constituency still have orchards—they have not been grubbed up, as in many other parts of the country—supplying apples, pears, damsons and even cherries and soft fruits to local processors of cider, fruit wines and spirits. The largest cider processor in the country is located in neighbouring Herefordshire, and a lot of my farmers provide it with fruit.

I hope that the Financial Secretary can confirm my reading of the clause, which is that in future it will be possible for such growers to establish their own mini-stills and to distil their product into spirits, which they can sell through local markets or whatever outlets they can find. That would be a welcome development. It might also help to ensure that any such activity that is going on at the moment in an unregulated and illegal fashion is brought into the realm of the above board, which would be welcome. I have some limited experience of that practice in other counties, because my father-in-law—he is no longer with us, unfortunately—lived in Somerset, which is another area of substantial apple production. He took me to a number of his neighbouring farms where some activity of that kind had been under way for decades. I am sure that that is not widespread, but there are pockets in the country where some distillation is taking place behind barn doors.

John Healey (Financial Secretary, HM Treasury; Wentworth, Labour)

In response to the hon. Member for Ludlow, in many ways section 82 of the 1979 Act is a throwback to a regime that was largely dispensed with in the 1980s. It required, in former days, people other than distillers, rectifiers or vinegar makers who kept stills to take out an excise licence and this regulatory power is no longer required. Anyone who uses a still to distil spirits—this is the point the hon. Gentleman made—must nevertheless have a distiller’s licence and they are committing an offence if no licence is held.

There are other provisions in the clause dealing with the simplification relating to stills and distillers, and to give the Committee an example of the degree of obsolescence in some of the provisions we are proposing to repeal, we shall repeal section 15(4), which requires distillers to provide accommodation for HMRC officials in the distillery. That is clearly no  longer required because the pattern of monitoring and assuring the operation of distillers has changed these days. That is an exemplar of what we want to achieve through the clause and I hope that the Committee will support it.